Why Did Kick-Ass Bomb? A Movieline IM Discussion
With just $7.5 million on Friday, Kick-Ass is a certified bust. Was it the marketing? Roger Ebert? The c-word? Spurred by these questions, senior editor S.T. VanAirsdale and I got into a feverish IM conversation about Kick-Ass. Basically: What happened?
Christopher: How about Kick-Ass, huh? What a huge disaster.
STV: How did that even happen? The R-rating aside, how could NO ONE see that?
Christopher: I don't even know. That's a horrendous opening. Especially since geek movies are totally front-loaded. That sh*t might not cross $15 million for the weekend. I mean no one saw it. It had to be the marketing. It was all consuming, but mostly it was just bad. I don't know one person over 30 who wanted to see it. And forget girls.
STV: It needed stars. It should have exploited Nicolas Cage more than it did. He sells tickets! People go see his terrible films.
Christopher: I think Aaron Johnson and his voice cracking was a huge turn-off. Get worse. You're not McLovin'. Also: more McLovin'.
STV: Well there is a perception problem. Like, New York profiled Christopher Mintz-Plasse and there was lots of attention in the Times. Prestige and sh*t. It got a ton of press. But! Did it really? When the principal web piece about Kick-Ass turns out to be Harry Knowles reacting to Roger Ebert's pan, that's a web FAIL. The audience for this film was online and they were totally overlooked in favor of the high-culture home run. Also, maybe there's something to people not really wanting to see average folks pretending to be second-rate superheroes. They want STARS with ACTUAL POWERS.
Christopher: They probably don't want little girls either. They focused the marketing on an 11-year-old girl and that's just weird. Her saying the c-word aside.
STV: Also: THE MOVIE WASN'T GOOD. That's a problem.
Christopher: I'm seeing it later. I don't think it's the movie, though, on opening weekend. People don't even know how good or bad it is.
STV: No, but word of mouth is important, especially when you can argue that the film peaked all the way back at Comic-Con last year. It had pretty short-lived momentum out of South by Southwest.
Christopher: I think the no stars is important. I mean Watchmen didn't have any stars, but that felt like an EVENT. This just felt like some sh*tty B-rate comic book movie based on a comic book that no one ever heard of. At least Watchmen is iconic, even if the movie was bad.
STV: I guess this means that Lionsgate will stick to Tyler Perry and Saw films from here on out, thank you very much. They probably see Killers next on the calendar and are cowering under the desk.
Christopher: Seriously. This opening is flat-out embarrassing. It will open lower than The Bounty Hunter.
STV: So no franchise, I guess. You'll see at the end of the movie why this might be a problem. It's kind of embarrassingly presumptuous
Christopher: It can join Terminator Salvation in that category. I think this proves that the pure geek audience is not as big as people assumed.
STV: Good! May the future belong to original ideas and flesh-and-blood characters who don't have to tie on a cape or strap on some rocket pack or milk anemic genre tropes in the desperate hopes of reaching audiences. Good riddance, Kick-Ass.
Christopher: Well, until the next comic book movie.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I would disagree about the word of mouth, as Rotten Tomatoes has it at 78%, which is pretty good considering how many people saw the Transformers movies.
This is likely a big case of 'who gives a shit', which is the marketings fault (highlighting Hit Girl, not highlighting Nic Cage or how hot Aaron Johnson is).
Audiences had difficulty getting to the theaters because of the volcano...
Are you so in thrall to Nikki Finke and her inaccurate early box office estimates and spin that you don't even know what constitutes a "bomb" anymore? How is a $20M+ weekend for a hard-R rated niche movie that every other studio in town was too scared to touch a bomb? How is a movie that cost $30M to produce and has already returned a profit to its investors before even being released (the U.S. rights alone sold to Lion's Gate for $25M and they're not going to lose any money on their end of the deal, either) a "bomb?" Trust me, Universal and a million other studios would kill to have such a "bomb" on their ledgers right now. Know of what you speak, please. Journalism 101.
Why blame Roger Ebert for something that thousands of moviegoers already thought anyway? Who wants to see a 12 year old girl say "cunt"?
I'm really hoping this is the beginning of the end of comic-book-inspired movies and superhero movies, BTW. Maybe that's another factor... it's a wave that's over and done with.
This is not a box office bomb, give me a break. I think these random guy just hated the movie.
Come on. This movie was positioned as a must-see phenomenon from the start -- a subversion of the bloated, precious meanderings of studio superhero flicks and the cult around them. On those terms, the genre revisionists will go on forever about how it was just misunderstood. But it wasn't misunderstood -- it was just misconceived. And no, Universal or any other major wouldn't want this on their ledgers, because no matter how you crunch the numbers, there's no franchise viability. With these films, profitability is secondary to market share. That's why you won't see another Hulk film either. Bottom line is no one cares.
Oh... I totally forgot about this! I take it all back. Never mind!
I think the geek/comics/Internet community is also somewhat over the author of the comic book (Mark Millar). That guy is such an over-hype machine. Every project he does is "going to change the face of the planet, cause women to grow a third breast, replace cancer with pudding, etc." At this point I don't want to read anything he writes no matter how good/bad it is.
Theory> If all of the teen characters were made 18 years old (including Hit-girl) then the movie would have had a successful opening.
The target audience is 18 to 35 and this age group doesn't want to pay to see their little brother and sister dressed in silly costumes talking trash. (they can see enough of that on Halloween)
Plus, the costume/marketing of Hit-girl would have been a major selling point if she was of legal age instead the creep factor she turned out to be.
"The target audience is 18 to 35 and this age group doesn't want to pay to see their little brother and sister dressed in silly costumes talking trash. (they can see enough of that on Halloween)"
Exactly.
I didn't go to see it, cuz honestly I didn't know what the fuck the movie was. It LOOKED kind of like a superhero movie, and that factor alone would normally get me into a theater. But then the only things I knew about the movie was that it had a silly title, a little kid (wtf?) running around in costume, and some guy in a cheap looking mask. I honestly thought it was just another one of the movies in the vein of "Scary movie" "date movie" "not another teen movie" or whatever they hell they are called... you know what I mean... all of those other horrible, horrible, horrible excuses for movies that attempt to make fun of a genre and just end up making me wonder what the fuck is wrong with the world that anyone would want to watch anything that is so stupid, inartistic, and unfunny.
Uh, also in regards to this asinine comment: "May the future belong to original ideas and flesh-and-blood characters who don’t have to tie on a cape or strap on some rocket pack or milk anemic genre tropes in the desperate hopes of reaching audiences." Supeheroes ARE flesh and blood characters, and a lot of people, (obviously myself included) like watching them not just because of some mystical powers and action sequences. The ones who are really passionate for this type of character are not into them because of the "SUPER" but because of the suffix-- "HEROES." Superheroes are always on some level GOOD, thoughtful, noble, unselfish humans (otherwise they'd be the villains of the story). AND unfortunately, since this world is pretty much only inhabited by selfish, disgusting solipsists... those who wish we had ended up in a less shitty world cling to these comic book personae in order to keep our spirits up that perhaps not everyone is as useless waste of flesh that they appear to be. And that maybe there is like, one fucking person out there who would be Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, Night Owl, or even Rorschach.
And, uh, on that note... I don't know what would possess someone to call Watchmen "bad." Watchmen was like, the best movie ever. UNLESS incredibly deep (not to mention rich, philosophical, disturbing, relevant, and diverse) themes, complex (as well as beautiful and dynamic) characters, enriching editing, thoughtful directing, SUPERB acting (Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Jackie Earle Haley!!), PERFECT special effects and an INCREDIBLY engaging (and original) plot is the opposite of what you look for in cinema. In which case... ugh.
I had a feeling this wouldn't go nearly as well as some were saying. It struck me as a Shoot Em Up, Drag Me To Hell or Jennifer's Body style situation -- plenty of fanboy interest, but a meh from most everyone else.
Scott Pilgrim's the next one in this category, I'm afraid.
Just like to say, all the people I know that have seen it, are girls!
Funny that!
So true. Jennifer's Body is a good point of comparison, particularly where the the Movies of the Moment factor is concerned. Throw in Whip It or Watchmen, and you've got an inflated WATCH THIS moment that can't survive the reality of demand. Enh, forget it, Jake, it's Hollywood.
Then why does Universal have several international rights to the movie and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World?
The online trailer made the movie seem interesting, however I couldn't get past 2 issues. #1 was the unnecessary foul language. #2 was the unbelievability of the story. Come on, a guy tries to take on real big-city thugs with clubs? They would have pulled out guns like Indiana Jones did to the sword-weilding Arab. Dead.
Word-of-mouth isn't just critics, it's preview audiences. And Lionsgate is no longer doing pre-screenings outside the top 20 markets. The failure of "Kick-Ass" is, in part, what happens when you write off vast portions of middle America.
I really enjoyed the film. I thought it had a lot going for it. However, the marketing made it seem like a film for teens, who struggle a little more now to see rated R movies. Not that its impossible to buy a ticket to something else and sneak in, but knowing you can download it soon online makes a fifteen year old a little less likely to take the risk to see it.
Maybe I just had low expectations, but I thought it was really entertaining. But I also thought Hot Tub Time Machine was awesome too, and that underperformed as well. Yet cliched crap like Avatar with terrible CG characters and a bad story does better than any film in history? I don't get it.
I just got home from the theater seeing this with my wife (we're both mid to late 20s) and we live in a fairly conservative state ... they were turning teens away at the box office because they weren't 18 and couldn't buy a ticket.
The film isn't BAD, but it's not amazingly good either. Was it funny? Yes. Will I return to the theater to see it again? No. Will I buy it on DVD? Maybe.
Was the R-Rating a problem? No. Half of the funny is because the movie is pretty dirty. Will the film break records raking in money? No.
However ... teens are talking about this film, they're trying to see it and getting turned away because of the R-Rating, which only makes them want to see it MORE. The first week may have a low monetary showing ... but next week will be better. Word of mouth on this movie is going to make teens get their older siblings and friends buy them tickets or sneak in to less-stringent theaters.
Plus ... this film is going to do pretty well on DVD and get stolen like crazy over the internet.
While I agree with many of the points in the post and comments, I was taken aback by "certified bust" and "huge disaster." Misconceived? Most definitely. As pointed out by the Movieline review, the film's premise is satire but, in execution, the film is content with mimicry, reveling in comic book and video game bloodlust. I disagree with the statement that this film was expected to be anything other than a niche product. It peaked at Comic Con and had "short-lived momentum" out of SXSW? If that's true, then where were the huge expectations that were being busted?
Hype? PR? It's the marketing folks' job to get people to think this is a must-see. The film didn't live up to an intriguing premise. It's not alone. The Phantom Menace was a bust, in terms of public expectations. Kick-Ass is just a disappointment.
Also, seriously, calling it a bust on Day 2? Can we just take a step back, please? Can't we all wait till Monday to deconstruct the artistic merits of the box office haul?
spin spin spin
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iba737dcb4b3076c0c1f32d7651633814
More people have commented on this post than saw the film on Opening Day.
I'm a girl, and I saw a midnight screening of it on Thursday. Granted, I went with my boyfriend who wanted to see it, but I ended up really liking it. I thought Hit Girl was awesome. Yes, it had its faults - what in the hell was Nicolas Cage doing? Was he re-teaching himself how to act? It was almost as bad as his helium voice choice in "Peggy Sue Got Married" - but it was entertaining. Sure, I obviously don't represent the majority of the theater-going audience, but for those of you who haven't yet seen it, I'd give it a 5 out of 10.
I saw the movie today but paid to see Clash of the Titans instead. I was at wondercon 2 weeks ago and had tickets for this movie, sadly they wasted our time in line for the movie as it was overbooked. As such I vowed to put my money to any other movie out. My friends all did as well. Not like that as what caused the weak opening but if the marketing people couldn't even get a pre screening right what makes people think they could get people to see this in the theater.
This seems like one of those movies that will do better in the home video afterlife... where the hard R-rating won't be so much of a handicap.
Next »